Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:58:10.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Susceptibility of various Species of Mosquitos to DDT, Dieldrin and BHC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. H. Wharton
R. H. Wharton
Affiliation:
Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The susceptibility of various mosquitos to DDT, dieldrin and BHC has been studied. Adult females were exposed in small tubes lined with filter papers impregnated with insecticide-oil solutions. Larvae were exposed to insecticideacetone suspensions in water.

Adult mosquitos tested in London showed no striking differences in susceptibility to DDT, though the median lethal concentration (MLC) of Culex pipiens molestus Forsk. (1·6 per cent.) was greater than the MLC of Aëdes aegypti (L.) (0·9), Anopheles maculipennis var. atroparvusvan Thiel (1·0), or A. quadrimaculatus Say (·7). C. p. molestus and Aë. aegypti showed the same order of susceptibility to dieldrin and BHC, with Anopheles m. atroparvus more susceptible to both insecticides.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , August 1955 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Busvine, J. R. (1952). The newer insecticides in relation to pests of medical importance.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 46, pp. 245–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. & Harrison, C. M. (1953). Tests for insecticide-resistance in lice, mosquitos and house-flies.—Bull. ent. Res., 44 pp. 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Nash, R. (1953). The potency and persistence of some new synthetic insecticides.—Bull. ent. Res., 44 pp. 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, G. (1952). Experiments on the use of DDT BHC and dieldrin against adult mosquitoes at Taveta, Kenya.—Nature, Lond., 170 pp. 702–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deonier, C. C.Raun, E. S.Peek, E. H.Davis, A. N. Jr., & Nottingham, E. (1949). A comparison of DDT and other new insecticides for mosquito control.—Mosq. News. 9 pp. 150–152.Google ScholarPubMed
Fay, R. W., Kilpatrick, J. W., Crowell, R. L. & Quarterman, K. D. (1953). A method for field detection of adult-mosquito resistance to DDT residues.—Bull. World Hlth Org., 9 pp. 345–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Finney, D. J. (1952). Probit analysis.—2nd edn., 318 pp. Cambridge, Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Giglioli, G. (1948). Malaria filariasis and yellow fever in British Guiana.— 226 pp. Georgetown Mosq. Contr. Serv. Med. Dep. Brit. Guiana.Google Scholar
Hadaway, A. B. & Barlow, F. (1953). Studies on aqueous suspensions of insecticides. Part IV. The behaviour of mosquitos in contact with insecticidal deposits.—Bull. ent. Res., 44 pp. 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, A. W.Madden, A. H. & Schroeder, H. O. (1946). Effect of temperature on knock-down and kill of mosquitoes and bedbugs exposed to DDT.—J. Kans. ent. Soc., 19 pp. 13–15.Google Scholar
Muirhead thomson, R. C. (1948). Studies on Anopheles gambiae and A. melas in and around Lagos.—Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 527–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. A. (1951). Effects of DDT upon different species of mosquitoes in Malaya.—Nature, Lond., 168, pp. 863–865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, A. R.Lindquist, A. W. & Terriere, L. C. (1953). Effect of temperature and the activity of house flies on their absorption of DDT.—J. econ. Ent., 46, pp. 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapido, H. (1951). The toxicity of DDT to Anopheles claviger (Meigen) in Sardinia and on the Italian mainland.—J. nat. Malar. Soc., 10, pp. 266–271.Google ScholarPubMed
Wharton, R. H. (1951). The behaviour and mortality of Anopheles maculatus and Culex fatigans in experimental huts treated with DDT and BHC.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar